On September 30, 2016, Judge Richard J. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a putative securities class action brought against MDC Partners, Inc. (“MDC”)—an advertising agency holding company—and several of its current and former officers and directors.  N. Collier Fire & Rescue Dist. Firefighter Pension Plan v. MDC Partners, Inc., No. 15 Civ. 6034 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016).  Plaintiffs claimed that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Actmisstating the amount of compensation paid to MDC’s founder and former CEO. The Court held that the alleged misrepresentations regarding the CEO’s compensation were not qualitatively material and dismissed the claims.   

Read more

​On October 3, 2016, the Supreme Court invited the Acting Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund (“Cyan”), a case in which the Supreme Court is considering whether, under Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), a state court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over covered class actions that allege claims only under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”).  There is no obligation on the part of the Solicitor General to respond or a formal deadline for it to do so, but the invitation by the Supreme Court could be read to suggest an increased likelihood that the Supreme Court will hear the case.

Read more

On September 27, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Southern District of New York, after a bench trial, finding that Vivendi Universal, S.A. (“Vivendi”) rebutted the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, thereby defeating a non-class, individual group of plaintiffs’ claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  GAMCO Inv’rs, Inc. v. Vivendi Universal, S.A., —F.3d—, 2016 WL 5389281 (2d Cir. Sept. 27, 2016).  The Court affirmed the district court’s determination that plaintiffs—a number of “value funds” controlled by GAMCO Investors, Inc. (“GAMCO”)—did not rely on Vivendi’s market price, and would have purchased the securities even had they known of Vivendi’s alleged misstatements respecting its liquidity risk.  While acknowledging that it would seem unlikely that an investor, “aware of fraud,” would purchase a security, the Court repeatedly emphasized that sufficient evidence in the trial record supported the district court’s findings.

Read more

On September 27, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for shareholder plaintiffs in a securities class action suit against Vivendi Universal, S.A. (“Vivendi”), following a lengthy jury trial, which found Vivendi liable for securities fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In re Vivendi, S.A. Securities Litigation, No. 15-180-cv(L), 15-208-cv (XAP), 2016 WL 5389288 (2d Cir. Sept. 27, 2016).  Plaintiffs were a class of investors who purchased Vivendi common stock between 2000 and 2002.  In affirming, the Court found sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury’s conclusion that Vivendi materially misstated its liquidity risk in a manner that either inflated or maintained Vivendi’s stock price, and that the revelation of the truth about Vivendi’s liquidity risk caused a drop in Vivendi’s share price.  The case is significant for a number of reasons, including the affirmance of a verdict arising out of a rare securities class action trial, and its analysis of loss causation and the controversial “price maintenance” theory of loss causation.

Read more

On September 20, 2016, Judge Susan O. Hickey of the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas certified a class of investors in an action brought against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.  City of Pontiac General Employees’ Retirement System v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al., No. 5:12-cv-05162 (W.D. Ark. Sept. 20, 2016).  The Court held that the proposed class met the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures (“Rule 23”), and named the City of Pontiac General Employees’ Retirement System as class representative.  

Read more

On September 2, 2016, Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied a motion to remand a putative class action brought under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) to state court.  Iron Workers District Counsel of New England Pension Fund v. MoneyGram Int’l Inc.

Read more

On September 7, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit affirmed the Southern District of Florida’s dismissal of shareholder securities fraud claims against The ADT Corporation (“ADT”).  IBEW Local 595 Pension and Money Purchase Pension Plans, et al v. The ADT Corporation et al, No. 15-13595, 2016 WL 4660814 (11th Cir. Sept. 7, 2016).  Plaintiffs claimed that ADT misrepresented and failed to disclose that its board’s motivation for approving a leveraged repurchase of company stock was to protect itself from threats of replacement by an activist hedge fund (the “Fund”) and that ADT and the Fund engaged in deceptive conduct in executing the repurchase plan, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Court held that ADT was not required to disclose its motives for the repurchase and the defendants had not engaged in manipulative conduct.

Read more

On September 2, 2016, Judge William Orrick of the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a putative class action against Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. (“CBMG”) alleging securities fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Bonanno v. Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc., No. 15-CV-01795-WHO, 2016 WL 4585753 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2016).  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity that a blog post compiling publicly available information about CBMG’s efforts to promote its stock was a corrective disclosure causing CBMG’s share price to drop, even in light of the allegation that the information was far-flung or effectively “hidden” or impossible for a lay person to compile. 

Read more

On August 24, 2016, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by putative class members under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against defendants BlackBerry Ltd. and certain of its officers.  Pearlstein, et al. v. BlackBerry, et al., No. 15-3991 (2d Cir. August 24, 2016).  The Court, however, vacated U.S. District Court Judge Thomas P. Griesa’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend, noting that the record was “insufficient” to determine whether leave was proper.  The Court remanded the case for reconsideration of the motion for leave to amend “[b]ecause the district court did not explain its basis for denying leave to amend.”

Read more

On August 22, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of a putative securities class action filed against Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (“Cooper”) and two of its officers.  OFI Asset Mgmt. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., No. 15-2664 (3d Cir. Aug. 22, 2016).  The Third Circuit held that plaintiffs’ lengthy allegations amounted to nothing more than claims of fraud-by-hindsight and thus did not meet the requirement that claims of securities fraud be pled with particularity.  

Read more

On August 18, 2016, Judge Kimba Wood of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action against FXCM Inc., a currency brokerage firm, and its two co-founders, with leave to replead.  Ret. Bd. of the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chi. v. FXCM Inc., 15-cv-3599 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2016).  In dismissing plaintiff’s claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (the “Exchange Act”), the Court found that plaintiff failed to plead allegations sufficient to give rise to a strong inference of scienter, holding that the complaint failed to allege either “motive or opportunity” or “strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness.”  Judge Wood’s decision joins the well-established Second Circuit precedent that plaintiff cannot meet the heightened pleading requirement merely by alleging that the defendant was motivated by a common desire to keep the corporation’s profits or by alleging “fraud by hindsight,” and confirmed that the standard for pleading scienter on the basis of recklessness is high.

Read more

On August 11, 2016, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the New York Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to dismiss fraud claims asserted against sponsors and underwriters of twenty-three residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”).  IKB International, S.A. v. Morgan Stanley, 2016 WL 4217814 (1^st Dep’t Aug. 11, 2016).  Defendants argued that the plaintiff had not adequately alleged its justifiable reliance on any alleged misrepresentation and that, when acting solely as underwriters of certain of the challenged transactions, they made no actionable misrepresentations.  The Court held that the plaintiff had adequately pleaded justifiable reliance on the purported misstatements and that the underwriters’ participation in the RMBS at issue, as pleaded, was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

Read more

On August 10, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action alleging that various JPMorgan entities and two JPMorgan employees were liable under federal securities laws and civil RICO for frauds perpetrated by Bernie Madoff’s advisory business, Bernie L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”).  Dusek v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., —F.3d—, 2016 WL 4205857 (11th Cir. Aug. 10, 2016).  Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were liable under section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and the federal civil RICO statute based on their banking relationship with Madoff and their access to BLMIS’s bank accounts.  The Court held that the securities law claim was barred by the Exchange Act’s five-year statute of repose and that the RICO claim was barred by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”).  

Read more

On August 11, 2016, the Second Circuit overruled its own precedent and vacated an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that had dismissed a petition to vacate an arbitration award because the petition did not, on its face, present a federal question.  Doscher v. Sea Port Grp. Sec., LLC, —F.3d—, 2016 WL 4245427 (2d Cir. Aug. 11, 2016).  The Court held that when considering a petition challenging an arbitration award under section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), federal courts may “look through” the petition to the underlying dispute between the parties to determine whether the petition is predicated on an action arising under federal law.

Read more

On August 5, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims against Citigroup, Inc.  AHW Investment Partnership v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 13-4488 (2d Cir. Aug. 5, 2016).  In a summary order, the Court held that plaintiffs may only recover for actual pecuniary losses sustained as the direct result of fraud, and not for hypothetical value plaintiffs may have realized by selling a stock before its price plummeted.  Plaintiffs had alleged that Citigroup and its officers made numerous fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations about the quality of plaintiffs’ investment in Citigroup between May 2007 and March 2009, causing plaintiffs to hold their Citigroup shares and incur losses of $800 million when the company’s stock price subsequently declined.

Read more

On July 27, 2016, Judge Sarah Illston of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California remanded two putative securities class actions against Fitbit, Inc.—one to the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County and the other to the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County.  See Rivera v. Fitbit, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-2890 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2016); De Luz v. Fitbit, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-3381 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2016).  Both matters had been commenced in California Superior Court in April and May of 2016, alleging only claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).  Fitbit removed both actions to federal court, and plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that the Securities Act prohibits removal of class actions when those actions assert only Securities Act claims.  

Read more

On July 22, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed a shareholder derivative action alleging that directors and executives at Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”) permitted and then covered up pervasive bribery at its Mexican subsidiary, Wal-Mart de Mexico (“Wal-Mex”).  Cottrell v. Duke, No. 15-1869 (8th Cir. July 22, 2016).  Plaintiffs were seeking to enforce rights belonging to Wal-Mart, but alleged that they were not required to demand that Wal-Mart itself pursue the claims, because the current board of directors was not impartial, meaning that such a demand would have been futile.  Applying Delaware law (the state of Wal-Mart’s incorporation), the Court found plaintiffs’ allegations insufficient to excuse demand as futile, and upheld the dismissal of the action.

Read more

On July 25, 2016, Judge David Carter of the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed, without prejudice, a putative class action brought by shareholders of El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. (“El Pollo”).  See Turocy v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. No. SA CV 15-1343-DOC (KESx) (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2016).  Plaintiffs alleged that El Pollo and certain of its executives made false statements concerning expected sales by failing to disclose the negative sales impact of recent changes in menu prices and offerings, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Court held, however, that plaintiffs had not alleged any actionable false statements, nor pleaded particularized facts creating a sufficiently compelling inference that El Pollo executives made the challenged statements with scienter.

Read more

On July 20, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit revived a putative class action against Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”).  Ohio Public Employees Retirement Sys. v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., et al., No. 14-4189, 2016 WL 3916011 (6th Cir. Jul. 20, 2016).  In reversing the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, the Court found that plaintiff’s allegations regarding loss causation were sufficient to sustain a claim against Freddie Mac under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) for making materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning its financial health.  

Read more

On July 19, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the dismissal of a proposed shareholder class action against Deloitte & Touch LLP.  Sanchez et al. v. Crocs, Inc. et al., No. 11-1116 (10th Cir. July 19, 2016).  The Court held that plaintiffs had not “established a strong inference that Deloitte acted recklessly, and consequently, their . . . claim fail[ed].” Plaintiffs had alleged that Crocs, Inc. hid increasingly unsellable inventory totals in 2006 and 2007 before announcing a $70 million inventory write-down in 2008, and that Deloitte knew about or recklessly disregarded “red flags” that should have alerted the auditing firm to the company’s impending financial troubles. 

Read more

On July 14, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a decision dismissing claims against Bear Stearns Companies L.L.C. (“Bear Stearns”) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and common law fraud under New York law.  SRM Global Master Fund Ltd. P’ship v. Bear Stearns Cos. L.L.C., 14-507-cv, 2016 WL 3769735 (2d Cir. Jul. 14, 2016).  The Court held that the class action tolling rule set forth in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), does not apply to 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b)(2), the five-year statute of repose that limits the time in which plaintiffs may bring various securities related claims, including under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. 

Read more

On July 15, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the post-verdict decertification of a previously certified class action against Wells Fargo subsidiaries. Mazzei v. Money Store, No. 15-2054 (2nd Cir. July 15, 2016).  The Court held that district courts have the power to decertify a class after a jury verdict and before the entry of final judgment. 

Read more

The tolling rule established by the Supreme Court in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah generally provides that the commencement of a class action in federal court suspends the applicable statute of limitations for all members of the proposed class.

Read more

On July 6, 2016, Judge William H. Pauley III of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a federal securities class action filed against Controladora Vuela Compañía de Aviación, S.A.B. de C.V. (“Volaris”), a low-cost airline, and certain other participants in its September 2013 initial public offering (“IPO”).  See Dekalb Cnty. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Controladora Vuela Compania de Aviacion, S.A.B. de C.V., No. 15 Civ. 1337 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2016).  In dismissing plaintiffs’ claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), the Court found that the alleged misstatements were not material because they affected less than 5% of Volaris’s overall revenue and also because the drop in stock price could not be attributed solely to the alleged misstatement but rather a “host of negative market-moving facts.”  Judge Pauley’s decision serves as a reminder that the materiality standard remains a “meaningful pleading obstacle” in Securities Act claims.

Read more

On July 6, 2016, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice federal securities class claims against the former CEO of an Australian pharmaceutical company, QRx Pharma Ltd. (“QRx”). Gillis v. QRx Pharma Ltd., No. 15 Civ. 4868 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2016).  Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connections with statements about the FDA approval process made while one of the company’s drugs was under review.  Judge Engelmayer granted the CEO’s motion to dismiss the claims on the grounds that the alleged misrepresentations about the FDA’s process and the likelihood of approval were inactionable opinion and/or forward-looking statements and because the complaint failed to allege scienter adequately.  This decision signals continuing skepticism of securities claims against pharmaceutical and medical device companies that are brought when developmental products are not successful in trials and/or do not receive regulatory approvals.

Read more

On July 5, 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities fraud class action complaint filed by shareholders of airplane part manufacturer Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.  See Anderson et al. v. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings et al., No. 15-3142 (10th Cir. July 5, 2016). Plaintiffs asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In the wake of defendants’ October 2012 announcement of a forward loss of $434.6 million in connection with specified projects, plaintiffs alleged that defendants had knowingly overstated the success of their efforts to cut costs and meet production deadlines for those projects in more than 40 statements in 2011 and 2012. The Court held that plaintiffs’ complaint was properly dismissed because they had failed to allege facts creating an inference of scienter that was cogent and compelling in light of the alternative inference that defendants had merely been overly optimistic.

Read more

On July 1, 2016, Judge William Pauley III of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative class action concerning Virtus Investment Partners, the parent of an investment advisory company that managed and provided advice to mutual funds.  See Youngers v. Virtus Inv. Partners Inc., No. 15-cv-8262 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2016).  Plaintiffs purported to assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of investors who purchased shares in certain Virtus mutual funds between May 8, 2010 and December 22, 2014.  Plaintiffs’ allegations concerned statements in the funds’ registration statement that the above-market performance of the funds using a particular investment strategy (the “AlphaSector” strategy) was calculated based on live trading since 2001.  Plaintiffs alleged that the pre-2008 returns were actually generated using only back-testing, as the algorithm was not developed until 2008.  

Read more

On June 21, 2016, Chief Judge Colleen McMahon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. (“Alibaba” or the “Company”) and several of its officers and directors.  See Christine Asia Co., Ltd. v. Alibaba Gr. Holding Ltd., No. 15 MDL 2631 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2016).  The court ruled that Alibaba’s failure to disclose a meeting with a Chinese regulator and certain administrative guidance from that regulator was not material because the disclosure of such information would not have significantly altered the “total mix” of information available to investors.

Read more

On June 20, 2016, Judge Lorna Schofield of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a securities class action against Seadrill Limited (“Seadrill”), a Bermudan company that owns and operates sea-based oil rigs, and related parties.  See In re Seadrill Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 14 Civ. 9642 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2016).  The Court granted the motion to dismiss because the alleged misrepresentations were either too vague to be actionable or were inactionable statements of opinion or optimism that were not inconsistent with the privately expressed concerns of company executives.

Read more

On June 8, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued decisions as to separate securities class action lawsuits, dismissing complaints against defendants Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Cellceutrix Corporation, in Fahey v. Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 14-5582, slip op. (9th Cir. Jun. 8, 2016) and Zagami v. Cellceutrix Corporation, et al., No. 15 Civ. 7194, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 8, 2016).  

Read More

On June 9, 2016, the New York Court of Appeals held that New York law does not exempt from discovery attorney-client privileged communications shared by parties that have a common legal interest, unless the communications relate to either pending or anticipated litigation.  Ambac, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., 2016 WL 3188989 (N.Y. Jan. 9, 2016).  

Read More

On May 24, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of securities fraud claims asserted against a corporation and the corporation’s CEO and CFO.  Doshi v. Gen. Cable Corp., No. 15 Civ. 5621, 2016 BL 164374 (6th Cir. May 24, 2016).  Although a corporate executive’s knowledge typically will be imputed to a corporation, the Court held that an executive’s state of mind, i.e., intent, will not be imputed unless that executive himself or herself makes a public misstatement.    This decision confirms the Sixth Circuit’s decision in In re Omnicare, Inc. Sec. Litig., 769 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2014) and makes clear that courts must review “all the allegations holistically” to determine whether a corporation’s scienter has been adequately pleaded.  Plaintiffs had alleged that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (the “Securities Act”) by recklessly issuing and/or approving materially false public financial statements.   

Read More

On May 20, 2016, Judge Dean Pregerson of the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed with prejudice a putative securities class action against Toshiba Corporation.  Stoyas v. Toshiba Corporation, No. CV 15-04194 DDP, 2016 BL 163950 (C.D. Cal May 20, 2016).  Plaintiffs alleged that Toshiba violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Japan’s Financial Instruments & Exchange Act by making accounting misstatements that led to the restatement of six years of financial results and the elimination of approximately one-third of the company’s profits from 2008 to 2014.  The Court rejected these arguments, holding that the American Depository Receipts (“ADRs”) were not subject to Section 10(b) claims, and that comity and a lack of connection to the United States compelled dismissing the Japanese law claims.

Read More

On May 23, 2016,  the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a jury verdict finding that defendants had violated the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), and invalidated more than $1.2 billion in civil penalties.  The Court ruled that the Government had failed to establish that defendants, including Bank of America N.A. and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide”), had committed fraud because there was no evidence of the requisite intent to defraud at the time the contracts leading to the loan sales at issue were executed. U.S. ex rel. O’Donnell v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., — F.3d —, 2016 WL 2956743 (2d Cir. 2016).  The Second Circuit noted that, absent contemporaneous intent to defraud at the time a contract is entered into, the Government’s case amounted to nothing more than intentional breach of contract, which is not a predicate for a FIRREA offense.
 
Read More

On May 20, 2016,  the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal on summary judgment claims against a Hong Kong-based auditor brought under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 11 the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), holding that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the auditor had either recklessly issued “clean” audit opinions or did not believe the opinions were true when issued.   In re Puda Coal Securities Litigation, Inc., — F.3d —, 2016 WL 2942415 (2d Cir. 2016).  In so holding, the Court clarified that “audit reports are statements of opinion subject to the Omnicare standard for Section 11 claims,” and held absent evidence of subjective disbelief or actionable omissions of information regarding the basis for the opinion, there could be no claim under Section 11.

Read More

On May 16, 2016, the United States Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, holding that Section 27 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) confers exclusive federal jurisdiction over the suits that “arise under” the Exchange Act pursuant to the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.  Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, 14-1132 (May 16, 2016).  Thus, the Court held that Section 27’s jurisdictional test matches the one formulated by the Court for Section 1331.  Plaintiffs had commenced the suit in New Jersey state court, asserting state-law claims based on allegations that several financial institutions had impermissibly engaged in “naked short sales,” which had devalued stock of Escala Group, Inc., a company in which Manning and the other plaintiffs held stock.

Read More

On May 10, 2016, Facebook filed a letter in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York action in connection with class action litigation concerning its $16 billion IPO. In re Facebook Inc., IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation, Case No. 1:12-md-02389 (S.D.N.Y.).  Facebook, defending against claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), contends that the absence of an effective plan for obtaining individualized discovery from unnamed class members may render the case “unmanageable” as a class action and, as a result, “the Court may wish to reconsider class certification at some point.”  Facebook further requested that, “at the very least, if the case proceeds as a class action,” the Court confirm that Facebook “will have the right to take individualized discovery from absent class members in a later phase of the case.”  The Court’s ultimate decision on these issues may impact parties in similar cases.

Read More

On May 10, 2016, Best Buy shareholder plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, seeking en banc review of the first circuit court ruling to apply the United States Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Halliburton II, and hold that a defendant had rebutted the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance by showing lack of price impact.  IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund et al. v. Best Buy Co. Inc. et al., case number 14-3178, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  Plaintiffs seek rehearing of the Court’s 2-1 decision in April, which relied on Halliburton II in overturning the class certification order of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, after finding that the District Court had ignored evidence presented by defendants demonstrating that the alleged misstatements did not impact the share price.  In seeking rehearing, Plaintiffs are attempting to align the Eighth Circuit with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits, which have held that for purposes of invoking the fraud-on-the-market presumption, a plaintiff may point to evidence that a false statement maintained an inflated price until the price dropped as a result of a corrective disclosure.

Read More

On April 29, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a dismissal by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, holding that the Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) extended the statute of repose from three years to five years for claims brought under Sections 9(f) and 18(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), it did not change the three-year statute of repose for Section 14(a) claims.  Bricklayers and Masons Local Union No. 5 Ohio Pension Fund v. Transocean Ltd. et. al., No. 14 Civ. 0894, 2016 WL 1055363 (2d Cir. April 29, 2016).  The Court reached this result despite a prior decision that applied the repose period under Sections 9(f) and 18(a) to Section 14(a), based on the principle that assumes that Congress accounts for existing law when it passes legislation.  

Read More

On April 29, 2016, Chief Judge Patti Saris of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court a putative class action brought under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).  Fortunato v. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., No. 15-13501-PBS, 2016 BL 137403 (D. Mass. Apr. 29, 2016).  This decision joins a number of courts that have remanded Securities Act class actions to state court after concluding that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”) did not negate the removal bar contained in the Securities Act.  This decisional trend has led plaintiffs to increasingly file Securities Act class action lawsuits in state courts, which often are less likely to dismiss complaints and may not apply the procedural protections of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), such as the pre-motion to dismiss discovery stay.

Read More

On April 22, 2016, Judge Kimba Wood of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim brought under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), holding that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) safe-harbor for forward-looking statements does not apply to statements that incorporate misleading representations of present fact.  In re Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., No. 14 Civ. 8925, 2016 WL 1629341 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2016).  Plaintiffs had alleged misrepresentations regarding the inventory levels of defendant’s primary products, intentionally increasing levels beyond customer demand, in order to make the company appear more financially robust than it was.

Read More